"says Aldo twenty-six for a" met Marcelo Galati, one of five migrants from 5 November to 2 December 2010 have occupied the now-famous tower Imbonati street in Milan. This mobilization, together with the crane of Brescia, has succeeded in putting at the center of political debate the injustice of the fraud suffered by thousands of migrants during the last amnesty launched in 2009. An amnesty, remember, first of all that was intended only to domestic workers and caregivers, and then cut out Work in all other categories of employment migrants in Italy. In addition, the vast majority of regularizing - needing a sponsor - has paid thousands of euro false Italian employers, many of whom have cheated and migrants have pocketed the money without even file the application for amnesty. Finally - a process already begun - the police chiefs have decided to reject applications for those who had previously been convicted of the crime of illegal immigration: migrants than to cheat by changing the rules to the game already started, the Italian state has become de facto many applications for amnesty of illegal immigrants in autodenunce.
addition to claiming a permit residence for all *, in addition to the rejection of a law - the Bossi-Fini - who does nothing but push people into hiding, next to the State complaint of racism which criminalises the mere lack of documentation, the mobilization of the tower has also been an extraordinary laboratory for self-organization. Migrants are out of the shadows and began to take hold of their condition, opening a new path of struggle and liberation. Well aware that any choice can not be delegated to anyone. And every future will only be conquered by them.
For space reasons, we publish excerpts here just had a long chat with Marcelo in early February 2011, the steps that seem more interesting than the sensitivity of the project "Aldo".
ALDO: You are one of five that rose on the tower via Imbonati. At work already had experience of disputes or struggles?
Marcelo: Yes, the Carlo Colombo, Agrate Brianza, a copper wire drawing where I worked until recently. A dispute that ended with the layoffs, but if it was for the company would have kicked out the ass. If we were not forced to occupy the roof of the factory, at this time we were on the street.
You have climbed onto the roof there, too?
No, no, there on the roof of the factory I have not gone up in person, because being a trade union delegate had decided at the meeting in which delegates remained under permanent garrison. Instead, workers with fewer constraints should take a more prominent role, going up. Why is that? Because when you're up there, you're canceled, you are locked, armored, so to speak. Instead below, your presence is important for the organization of the garrison. If you go to see, in order of priority, it is important that the occupation of the garrison. And this definitely gave me more experience.
He spoke of "forced." A
forcing that trade unions and political parties if the dream! I believe the struggles that come only with the forcing, because if you do not make sense that the forces have to do things? When we were in a meeting with the president of the province of Monza and Brianza Agrate the mayor of the company, unions and our workers - about twenty people around the table - the company has not given us the answer we wanted. Then in mid-meeting, we sent a message by mobile phone: it's game on Employment of the roof. Employment during a meeting if the dream! It's not that we go into the meeting that there already is employment, or we go out there and you go to take care of them during their meeting before the President of the province.
During the negotiations have said, "Look that at this time has been occupied the roof of Charles Columbus "?
No, the company entered the driver said, "We got a call, the company has been busy." And we here, if nothing had happened ... then we said, 'Now what do we do? All the talk that we were telling, as we put them? ".
In several places where you worked you were the only migrant?
Yes, the factory was the only one taken indefinitely. But there were immigrants who worked for the cooperative.
What does the cooperative?
Cooperatives serve virtually split the workers: there are those of the cooperatives and those with permanent job. Those who work directly with the machines, who works in production, is called the 'first sector', the productive sector. First, the whole factory was in the first sector, by those who made up the street sweeper who you changed a bolt. Now, no, the laws have changed and the first area is divided by the services. One that up to fifteen years ago was a security guard in a factory, had the contract for engineering. But now the security guard is a service and the service is part of another category, then you trade, or the police. Engineering is only those who put their hands directly on the product, who transforms him. All the others - the warehouse, quality control, anything that has nothing to do with production - is regarded as a service. For example, the electrician, the bricklayer, all those things that are needed in the factory, which take the form of external work with the contracts. With a contract, you can also take people from cooperatives, limited duration. And precarious work. The factory was quite marked difference: my fellow workers, those cooperatives - which were the work of moving, storage, cleaning and other types of work - called them "little black". They are called so because most were in Senegal. The curious thing is that 'little black' does not really meant that they were in Senegal, because there were Moroccans, not blacks. But the concept of 'little black' was used to label those of the cooperative. There were also Italians, among the 'little black'! Neapolitans, but also Brianza. Young Brianza, perhaps even university graduates, who end up working in a cooperative. And what were labeled as migrants.
Because of the work they were doing?
Yes This is a striking thing, because when you identify as being different, you can treat it as different. To me the first question that came naturally was, "If we all work in the factory, and we have a canteen in the factory, because they do not eat with us?". Is clear: if you first identify them as something else, then it is logical that you should not eat. Why are another thing, they are outside. So here we are talking not of racism against people from outside and you do not even know how to speak, but we talk about racism in working conditions. And I can assure you, this kind of thing was not prompted by the company, the company has never said anything to divide the workers. Since the law allowed him created the division between permanent and temporary workers of the cooperative.
The 'little black' are union members?
not have a union! Those who work in a cooperative is not entitled to union. They have no right to the table, I figured if you have the right to review! And they have the problem of the continuous renewal of the contract: "I renew or not renew my contract when the term ends?" The cooperative name change every two years and people continue to be precarious ... the usual tricks that we know that all those who do. But it is the state with its laws to allow this. But my experience has been different. The first time I went to work in a warehouse, I went to a cooperative. There were six warehouse workers, all employees on permanent contracts, all but one Italian who was Moroccan. When I got there, the first day of work, I have taken in the locker room, everybody, and they told me I owed him say how much they earn, without question. And I told her, I did not care much. Then they took me to an ear, they took me by the director, and told him: "Same work, same pay. We will not allow a person comes here to work and earn less than us. Because you get there tomorrow and take another taste, and then another, and after we lose the job. Thus, increases or salary, or you do not bring anyone here by the cooperative. " I found the same day with the increased salary, good meals, good for transportation. In a day's work. Thanks to the determination of my colleagues. What I have said clearly: "Do not do it for you, do it for us." And there were no unions. An example of a class instinct. A totally different thing from what we used to hear: a clear position of the workers, unorganized but fortunately not trained. That's how you should lead the Italian workers against foreigners. And every Italian worker against precarious. A simple idea: "Same work, same pay."
What stories via Imbonati tower instead?
When the fight is over Carlo Colombo and became a "militant cassintegrati," I approached the "Committee Immigrants in Italy in Milan. They asked me a hand, and I - I had never done anything on the issue of migrant - Did I date. It is an organization that has decades of experience at the national level, and wanted to organize in Milan. Certainly, in recent years has not had a high profile, but did a job that lasts over time: it keeps alive a fight, it makes a path and gives a profile of different types of migrants' struggles. A decade of work, although not by the immediate positive results, or even bears fruit in those ten years, he always move the "cauldron", there is always someone to move. What is interesting is the self-organization, the organization of the migrants themselves. Self-organization produces some interesting things, breaks many barriers in and out of the box struggle as seen here in Italy.
For example?
There are no rules! Are there rules to attack migrants? No! So I do not even respect the rules! Think about the "amnesty-scam." Not only the rules are so narrow as to seem made not just for meeting them, but the state itself changes the rules for the amnesty. That's amnesty and residence permits to immigrants cheated was the most immediate need. This is compounded by other claims, which are part of the Platform Committee of Immigrants in Italy: the permission for those who have lost their jobs because of the crisis, allowed for those working in black and denounced his employer, the right to vote if you live in Italy for more than five years, citizenship for children of migrants who are born here, a law on asylum.
How was the continued mobilization of the tower?
It began with the question: "We have this need. What we do. " First, a garrison about. After you've made the garrison, what do you do? A demonstration to show you. So who informed you, you've also invited to attend the event. Once done the event, please inform to another garrison. This is a normal dynamic, which is called the "accumulation." The rationale is to make a second defense to inform other people, then organize another event. And in the meantime you get policy responses to the institutions. The answers they gave us were in our favor: once in the prefecture as the police station they told us "Yes, you're right, but we can not do anything, is that the law is." So, give us reason given on fraud made in the amnesty, but reported an inability to solve problems. At that point associations start to get more questions: "Why, despite the accumulation of good work carried out, lack of policy responses?" And they are convinced that the migrants have to find ways to put pressure on institutions to stop being ignored that way. Must to corner the parties, to force them to find solutions. After the experience of
Carlo Colombo, I made a proposal: "We can look for a crane to a construction site, we do get someone on the crane and the crane become a political problem for the government, so let it be there in the garrison." In fact, if your goal is to preserve the square of the garrison and launch your message with the occupation of a crane, creating a bigger problem and more visible. It also put a safe distance between occupants and police can not evict a crane as a garrison evacuate unauthorized in a square. The garrison, however, you do not authorized, but nobody tells you anything because you're there in solidarity with those at the top. It was what I said before: the important thing - how to Carlo Colombo - is the defense, not the tower, not the crane.
The proposal to get on a high place like that?
Yes, Milan takes the idea of \u200b\u200bthe tower, mainly among the militants. Takes, but there are many doubts. Mainly whom? Associations, political parties and those who work with the unions. Why such an action, would ensure that immigrants take the initiative. An initiative that political parties, associations and trade unions are not able to take. They say they have constraints and that the situation is not yet ready to make that decision. But migrants do not have these constraints - that we talked about before - and can afford to do the "forced" to climb the tower. Then - paradoxically - the migrants become the real problem of organizations, political parties, trade unions. Why highlight their inability, because they are able to do what they are not capable of doing, even with two million members. Obviously, because the migrants have nothing to lose, and if instead you have two million subscribers ... you have two million members to lose, you have to lose your position in society, all that money, and the possibility to make you a candidate for any political office in the next election. So this was, paradoxically, the problem.
Self-organization of the migrants work?
I believe that there, the people down there, the fact of going to the protest and not to recognize leaders, has helped a lot of people and self-development. The problem is that the lack of real direction in the tower let you play pretty good parties and organizations.
In what way?
Why were the authorities to ensure that the answer to the question of the tower passed to their responsibilities, presented themselves as representatives of migrants. And the answer to the question was silence people to the protest and send her home, even if the issue of amnesty and permits had not yet been resolved. And this is serious.
There is an explanation as to why they have behaved well. They said they have to take that position by firefighters to protect the integrity of migrants, because in theory the police could attack the garrison at any time. Which has been proved false: the garrison lasted fifty days and there was no attack. But this idea of \u200b\u200bprotecting migrants in fact was the preservation of their souls, because they were identified by authorities as the people who organized everything. So his credibility was in danger and social status they had acquired in years. In short, their position was threatened for giving space for self-organized migrants. Yes, because in the end, these unions and these parties - consciously or unconsciously - had given space to self-migrants.
0 comments:
Post a Comment